Summary. This study determined the misconceptions of high school students aged 14 to
18 on force and gravity and compared the misconceptions according to gender and according to school Physics background. The results suggest that the subjects of this research study hold misconceptions that have been reported by other similar research studies.
Three prevalent misconceptions were found on questions 1, 2 and 3, concerning the force on a ball thrown vertically upward. One of these is the idea that the direction of motion is also the direction of the force. Another prevalent misconception is the belief that the force of throw is still present in the ball even after leaving the hand. The third prevalent misconception is the idea that there is no force when there is no motion. These misconceptions were found to be persistent because they were present in students of the three types of school Physics background, which means that they exist in the minds of students even after Physics instruction.
In the situation where the ball was thrown in a parabolic path (questions 4 and 5), a dominant misconception seen was the belief in the presence of the force of throw. The Physics group showed a strong belief in the combination of force of throw and gravity in the motion of the ball in a parabolic path, which they associated with the horizontal and vertical components of the force. Another prevalent misconception seen was the belief that there is no force when the ball is at the top of its parabolic path.
Question 6 asked about the force on a bicycle that is slowing down. The most common misconception among the Physics and Physical Science group is the idea that gravity slows down the motion. Among the Middle School Science group, the most common misconception was that the force used to speed up is still there. Other prevalent misconceptions include the following
ideas: there is force when there is motion; there is no force when motion is slowing down; and there is no force when no pedaling and no brakes are applied.
The concept of gravity, which is covered on questions 7-11, has the most prevalent misconceptions found in this study. The most common misconception was the belief that there is no gravity in space. Students from the Physics group were found to be the largest proportion having this misconception. Other misconceptions reported are the following: gravity increases at high altitudes; gravity is less in air; gravity is less when falling; gravity in a free-fall from an airplane is much less because gravity decreases with altitude; there is no gravity on the moon; there is no gravity in orbit because objects just float; there’s more gravity underwater when swimming downward; there’s no gravity underwater; and gravity makes the man drown if he doesn’t swim. Some lines of reasoning were found to be similar between the students of the
Middle School Science and Physics groups.
A prevalent misconception found by question 12 is the belief that the blocks will move to the same level because they are equal. Question 12 involved a situation in which two equal mass blocks were tied to ends of a string that was passed over a pulley.
The misconceptions found in this study are very similar to the misconceptions found among Asia-Pacific students in the APPTEA research. This is an indication that misconceptions are universal, and although it is often believed and quoted in the popular press that Asian
students are “better” than American students, the findings of this study show that they have
similar conceptual difficulties on force and gravity. This is also consistent with my own
experience as a teacher for 12 years in the Philippines and as a teacher here in East Baton Rouge Parish for two years.
Aside from gathering students’ misconceptions, this study also included a comparison of
the number of misconceptions held according to gender and according to school Physics background. There is no significant association between gender and the number of
misconceptions; the proportion of misconceptions held by the males does not significantly differ from the proportion of misconceptions held by the female students. The Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) between school Physics background and the number of misconceptions held suggests a strong agreement in the ranking of the number of misconceptions held by students according to school Physics background.
The proportion of students having misconceptions is also compared to gender and to school Physics background. The difference in the proportion of male and female students having misconceptions is not significant at the 0.05 level of significance. Thus, the proportion of
students with misconceptions is not associated with gender. The coefficient of concordance (W=0.750) suggests a strong correlation between school Physics background and the proportion of students having misconceptions. This is also found to be significant with a p-value < 0.001.
Conclusions . Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. Students in this study have misconceptions similar to the misconceptions found in previous research. American students have similar conceptual difficulties on force and gravity as the Asia- Pacific students.
2. There is no significant association between the number of misconceptions and gender (p=0.68).
3. There is no significant difference in the proportion of male and female students having misconceptions (p=1.00).
4. There is a strong correlation between the number of misconceptions held and the type of school Physics background (W=0.886 and p<0.001). That is, the number of misconceptions held diminishes as school Physics instruction progresses.
5. There is a strong correlation between the proportion of students having misconceptions and the type of school Physics background (W=0.750 and p<0.001). The proportion of students with misconceptions decreases as school Physics instruction progresses.
Recommendations. The researcher recommends that:
1. The findings of this study be used by teachers and curriculum developers in designing classroom activities and teaching strategies that could address the students’ misconceptions found;
2. Teachers find ways of identifying students’ misconceptions, such as the use of probes or
formative assessment, to motivate students and to guide in the teaching process; and 3. Similar researches be conducted, with emphasis on testing teaching strategies that could effectively alter students’ misconceptions.
REFERENCES
Beyer, B. & Panna, A. (1971). “Some Implications of Concept Thinking”. National Council for the Social Studies Bulletin . No. 45.
Brown, D. (1982). “Using Examples and Analogies to Remediate Misconceptions in Physics: Factors Influencing Conceptual Change”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 21 (1), 17-34.
Chambers, S. & Andre, T. (1997). “Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 34, No. 2. Pages 107-123.
Cibik, A., et.al. (2008) “The Effect of Group Works and Demonstrative Experiments Based on Conceptual Change Approach: Photosynthesis and Respiration”. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 9, Issue 2, Article 2 .
Donovan, M., et.al. (1999). “How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice”. National Academic Press.
Driver, R., et.al (1994). “Making Sense of Secondary Science”. Routledge Falmer. London and New York.
Dow, P. (2000). “Why Inquiry? A Historical and Philosophical Commentary”. Foundations , Vol.2, Chap. 2.
Khang, G.N., et.al. (1995). “Gender Difference, Misconceptions and Instruction in Science”. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education. Volume 15, Issue 2 1995 , pages 33 – 41.
Gunstone, R. & White, R. (1981). “Understanding of Gravity”. Science Education. Vol. 65, Pages 291-299.
Gunstone, R. (1987). “Student Understanding in Mechanics: A Large Population Survey”. American Journal of Physics. Vol. 55, Pages 691-696.
Gunstone, R. et.al. (1989). “Conceptions in Mechanics: A Survey of Students’ Beliefs in Seven Asian Countries” . Asia-Pacific Physics Teachers And Educators Association Research Report . No. 1.
Halloun, I.A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). “Common Sense Concepts About Motion”. American Journal of Physics , 53 (11), 1056-1065.
Haury, D. (1993). “Teaching Science Through Inquiry” . ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education . ED359048.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M. and Swackhamer, G. (1992). “Force Concept Inventory”. The Physics Teacher. Vol. 30. March 1992.
Lawson, R. and McDermott, L. (1987). “Student Understanding of the Work-Energy and Impulse-Momentum Theorems”. Vol. 55, No. 9.
Lee, M. et.al. (1992). “Misconceptions on Selected Topics in Physics Among Malayan Pupils” . Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia , 15 (1) , 55-62.
Lijnse, P. (1990). “Energy Between the Life-World of Pupils and the World of Physics” . Science Education , 74 (5), 571-583.
McDermott, L. (1998). “Students’ Conceptions and Problem Solving in Mechanics”. Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education . International Commission on Physics Education. Page 42.
McDermott, L. & Redish, E. (1999). “RL-PER1:Resource Letter on Physics Education Research”. American Association of Physics Teachers.
McDermott, L., et.al. (1987). “Student Difficulties in Connecting Graphs and Physics: Examples from Kinematics”. American Journal of Physics. Vol. 53, Pages 503-513.
McDermott, L., et.al. (1994). “Research as a Guide for Teaching Introductory Mechanics: An Illustration in the Context of the Atwood’s Machine”. American Journal of Physics. Vol. 62. Pages 46-55.
Rankin, L (2000). “Lessons Learned: Addressing Common Misconceptions About Inquiry”. Foundations, Vol. 2, Chap. 5.
Rosenquist, M. & McDermott, L. (1987). “A Conceptual Approach to Teaching Kinematics”. American Journal of Physics. Vol. 55, No. 5.
Savinainen, A & Scott, P. (2002). “Using the Force Concept Inventory to Monitor Student Learning and to Plan Teaching”. Physics Education. Vol. 37. Retrieved September 6, 2009, from iopscience.
Scott, P. et.al. (1998). “Teaching for Conceptual Change: A Review of Strategies”. Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education . International Commission on Physics Education. Page 71.
Taborda, U. (1998). “Misconceptions on Force and Gravity Among the Science High School Students of Mariano Marcos State University”. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of Northern Philippines.
Thornton, R. & Sokoloff, D. (1998). “Assessing Student Learning of Newton’s Laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula”. American Journal of Physics. Vol. 66, No. 4.
Trowbridge, D & McDermott, L. (1981). “Investigation of Student Understanding of the Concept of Acceleration in One Dimension”. American Journal of Physics. Vol. 49. No.3.
Trowbridge, D & McDermott, L. (1980). “Investigation of Student Understanding of the Concept of Velocity in One Dimension”. American Journal of Physics. Vol. 48. No.12.
Worth,K. (2000). “The Power of Children’s Thinking”. Foundations, Vol.2, Chap. 4.
Electronic References: http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Journal2.asp?JournalID=103332 http://www.langsrud.com/fisher.htm http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jean_Buridan http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
APPENDIX A